, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scenario, you are an employee within a Group of Companies who operate a small residential home/hospital for patients with mental health or learning disabilities at Plas Coch in Anglesey. Redundacies are on the way. Sadly you have failed the selection. Do you decide to appeal against your redundancy if:

– Although the [selection] interview was supposed to attract a maximum score of 20, there were five questions, each with a maximum score of 5, yielding a possible total of 25. ”

– The assessors were not given any written guidance as to what each mark in the range connoted.

– The scoring for the individual interviews was from 0-5, although the Tribunal noted that some assessors only marked from 1-5.

– Individual assessors approached the matter in different ways (although the nurses were marked by one managers with nursing qualifications)

– Made no use of past performance appraisals

– The views of current managers were not involved

– None of the team conducting the assessments had any experience of working with the individuals who were being assessed

– Some Assessors collaborated before agreeing the scores and agreed the scores before they put them down on their score sheets,

– The assessment was run without facilitation and so was likely to favour those who had an outgoing personality and that it would disadvantage those who were “retiring and thoughtful.

– There was a total lack of proper consultation

– there were 13 support staff vacancies at other units in North Wales.

– and finally, any internal appeals were to go to the architect of this whole scheme without sufficent information for their selction (no wonder no employee appealed).

Your answer is …..probaly the same as that of the Employment Appeals Tribinbal: this is not just wrong (their words) but daft (my words)!

By way of what the tribunal would have looked for:

  1. What was the reason for dismissal?
  2. On the assumption that it was redundancy was the correct pool chosen?
  3. What were the selection criteria and were they fair?
  4. Were the criteria applied fairly?
  5. Was there proper and adequate consultation?
  6. Did the respondent look to see if there was alternative work available for the dismissed claimants?
  7. Was there a fair appeal system?
  8. Did the decision of the respondents come within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer?
  9. In the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the respondents undertaking) did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in the treating their reason for dismissal as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimants?”


Appeal No. UKEAT/0248/12/SM

Further reading:

The employer: Provides a report commissioned by the Castlebeck Board of Directors following the Winterbourne View BBC programme and sets out our progress to date. It makes interesting reading. I skipped to tbe bit about employees before I fell asleeep!

Consulation: Lord Justice Glidewell in R v British Coal Corporation that:

“Fair consultation means (a) consultation when the proposals are still at a formative stage; (b) adequate information on which to respond (c) adequate timing in which to respond (d) conscientious consideration by an authority of a response to consultation.